[onlooker]

Bizarre Particles Keep Flying Out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter Modern Physics

https://www.livescience.com/63692-stand ... ysics.html

[vox_mundi]

C'mon, It's the beta StarGate in Antarctica.

http://www.rdanderson.com/stargate/entr ... rctica.htm

[vox_mundi]

The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard Model Particle, and Supporting Observations from IceCube

Abstract

The ANITA collaboration have reported observation of two anomalous events that appear to be εcr≈0.6 EeV cosmic ray showers emerging from the Earth with exit angles of 27∘ and 35∘, respectively. While EeV-scale upgoing showers have been anticipated as a result of astrophysical tau neutrinos converting to tau leptons during Earth passage, the observed exit angles are much steeper than expected in Standard Model (SM) scenarios. Indeed, under conservative extrapolations of the SM interactions, there is no particle that can propagate through the Earth with probability p>10−6 at these energies and exit angles. We explore here whether "beyond the Standard Model" (BSM) particles are required to explain the ANITA events, if correctly interpreted, and conclude that they are. Seeking confirmation or refutation of the physical phenomenon of sub-EeV Earth-emergent cosmic rays in data from other facilities, we find support for the reality of the ANITA events, and three candidate analog events, among the Extremely High Energy Northern Track neutrinos of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. Properties of the implied BSM particle are anticipated, at least in part, by those predicted for the "stau" slepton (τ~R) in some supersymmetric models of the fundamental interactions, wherein the stau manifests as the next-to-lowest mass

[vox_mundi]

+1 Gas & onlooker




I'm bettin' there's a whole chuck of physics that's missing

[onlooker]

Vox & Gas, any insights on what exactly are the Dark matter and Dark energy? Oh and your cartoon images certainly highlight the perils and pitfalls of technology Vox. Two examples being unintended consequences and falling into the hands of the unscrupulous

[Cog]

Don't panic onlooker. Strange particles won't turn you into a conservative republican.

[vox_mundi]

Vox & Gas, any insights on what exactly are the Dark matter and Dark energy? ...

You'd get the Nobel Prize in Physics if you had the answer to that.

I'm going with extra dimensions - or a math error.

It's in there somewhere...


https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/phys.2 ... ig_002.jpg

[onlooker]

Vox & Gas, any insights on what exactly are the Dark matter and Dark energy? ...

You'd get the Nobel Prize in Physics if you had the answer to that.

I'm going with extra dimensions - or a math error.

It's in there somewhere...


https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/phys.2 ... ig_002.jpg

At least in regards to dark matter don't think it's a math error given the tangible observed effect of clustered galaxies. As for Dark Energy, scientists say it makes up much of the Universe and explains why large astrophysical objects are moving away from each other so rapidly, so some energetic force is propelling them in defiance of gravity

[vox_mundi]

Yes.

Gravity & mass probably have a lot more depth than the current Standard Model accounts for. And we still have to connect Gravity with the Strong and Weak forces and Electro-magnetism.

There may also be a fifth force.

Oh well. Something to keep our species busy should it elect to survive this century.

[jedrider]

I'm hoping they find an alien force buried in the Antarctic that was put there to save humanity from global warming.

But, what are the chances?

[vox_mundi]

... At least in regards to dark matter don't think it's a math error given the tangible observed effect of clustered galaxies. As for Dark Energy, scientists say it makes up much of the Universe and explains why large astrophysical objects are moving away from each other so rapidly, so some energetic force is propelling them in defiance of gravity

What if everything we know about dark matter is totally wrong?

... Decades ago, scientists were confident about the existence of the “luminiferous aether” as a medium to carry light. Now, that’s looked back on as a clumsy belief that should have been dropped far earlier than it was. Scientists persisted because they were sure that light, like sound, required a medium to move through in spite of the evidence piling up against that concept. Having been fooled once, scientists have to ask: Is dark matter the new ether?

For decades, a few rogue scientists have stood hopefully at the edge of respectability, offering their theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND. Essentially, it says that physics doesn’t work as we know it at the largest scales. It says we’ve been drawing the wrong conclusions, and dark matter isn’t required to explain the universe. No one has managed to develop a theory of MOND that adequately explains the universe around us, but it occasionally gains converts simply because the competing theory of dark matter has a glaring flaw: we can’t find it.

Perhaps we’re wrong about something in the standard model that defines how the tiniest particles in the universe behave and interact, and dark matter exists, but in a very different form than we’re expecting. Or perhaps we are wrong about the laws of gravity.

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/09/w ... ark-matter

[jedrider]

What if everything we know about dark matter is totally wrong?

This type of statement no longer disturbs me, that we will find this totally alien thing that has been fooling our data for so long.

Our data doesn't appear to be going out of fashion. It is just the data. Explaining it, oh, that's the rub!

I was under the impression that Dark Energy is just what is there in the fabric of the Universe. All we can do is account for it as a number in our equations.

Isn't Dark Matter in the same category? Will someone come up with a glob of 'dark matter' that can be examined in the laboratory? I think not.

We've already smashed gazillions of particles together, and there was no dark matter. Do we need universe level energies to find dark matter? Perhaps.

[BTW: I flunked physics in college. I should have blamed it on the 'Dark' matter or energy, but I didn't know about it back then.]

[Cog]

Dark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

[jedrider]

Dark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

Define 'real'??

[dissident]

Dark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

Very good point. Dark matter and dark energy are the Ptolemaic epicycles of modern theory. In the case of dark matter, its properties are just too contrived. It maintains enough kinetic energy to never condense into any compact objects and gives the "perfect" correction to the galactic rotation problem by maintaining a diffuse mass halo in the galactic potential well.

Dark energy is even worse. The universe is assumed to be isotropic (just because) even though it originated from an exploding singularity. But it could be elliptic (collapsing), hyperbolic (expanding) and the parabolic configuration (static) is just an unstable boundary separating these two parametric regimes. If it is hyperbolic, then it is no longer isotropic and we are grossly misinterpreting distance. The "acceleration" is a mistake following from this misinterpretation.

[vox_mundi]

A modified law of gravity correctly predicted, in advance of the observations, the velocity dispersion—the average speed of stars within a galaxy relative to each other—in 10 dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way's giant neighbor Andromeda.

The relatively large velocity dispersions observed in these types of dwarf galaxies is usually attributed to dark matter. Yet predictions made using the alternative hypothesis Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) succeeded in anticipating the observations.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a controversial alternative to general relativity, the prevailing Einstein-inspired understanding of the phenomenon of gravity, that requires dark matter to exist, but this has never been proved. MOND does not require dark matter.

The finding bolsters the case McGaugh and Milgrom made for MOND's effectiveness in predicting properties in dwarf galaxies in a paper published earlier this year. In that paper, they successfully predicted the velocity dispersion in 17 of the galaxies.

Lead author Pavel Kroupa, Professor at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, said: "There have been many premature claims on the death of MOND in very influential journals. So far, none stand up to detailed scrutiny."

Dr. Indranil Banik of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of St Andrews, and soon to be of Bonn University, said: "It is remarkable that MOND still makes such successful predictions based on equations written down 35 years ago."

Dr. Hongsheng Zhao, of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of St Andrews, said: "Our modeling of the MOND environmental effect was later confirmed by another group."

Pavel Kroupa et al. Does the galaxy NGC1052–DF2 falsify Milgromian dynamics?, Nature (2018)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0429-z

[Outcast_Searcher]

Dark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

Well, per Neil deGrasse Tyson, you're as right as anyone else, at least as far as we currently understand things.

Tyson, like Buffett, is a really smart guy with a very down to earth way of explaining things.

"Dark matter. I get asked what it is. And my best answer is we haven't a clue. We don't know what it is," Tyson tells us.

https://www.businessinsider.com/neil-de ... er-2013-12

At about 1:35 in the video, he points out that we should call dark matter "Fred" because we have no idea what it is. He also says it is "the longest standing unsolved problem in modern astrophysics". Earlier in the video he says we knew about dark matter in the 1930's, but we used to call it "the missing mass problem".

...

Science is very useful, but when we don't know something, we're REALLY clueless. For example, the projections about what the outer moons of the gas giants would be like before the Voyager and other NASA probes were so far off that they were pretty much just guesswork, based on how far off they generally were.

[Outcast_Searcher]

+1 Gas & onlooker


I'm bettin' there's a whole chuck of physics that's missing

The current mess of particles and the focus that if we just find more and more particles, THEN we'll be able to explain things reminds me of when we just KNEW planetary orbits had to be circular (because God made everything, circles are perfect, yadda yadda).

And that sort of model was clung to for a VERY long time, with various "improvements" to allow for new data from better observations.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Synt ... node4.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

And yet, with a stroke, Kepler demolished all this with a much simpler paradigm -- it's not circles, but ellipses. Suddenly the horrendously complex becomes relatively simple again.

Occam's Razor is an extremely useful rule of thumb.

...

I don't think I'll live nearly long enough to see it, but I believe that at some point a new "aha" moment will appear which will make us take a much different and simpler view of the physics particle zoo.

[vox_mundi]

Aha!

We're all living in the Matrix.